Introduction to the July guest editorial

Tibor Farago and Claudia Bernhardt wrote me an essay for their 2nd TG which I would like to share with you as a guest editorial for July.
What I find particularly valuable about this essay is the message that we ourselves are responsible for our negative emotions owing to our attitudes to life.
It is not the fault of the situation, external events or other people that we feel lousy, only our own.
Negative feelings rob us of energy, and we should try to free ourselves from them. And this guest editorial can help us.

Keith R. Kernspecht

Guest editorial

Things often happen in life which we cannot explain. We ask ourselves why it is happening to us, why me and why now.
People have always looked for explanations to understand different events which seem to be outside their sphere of influence. Depending on their cultural environment, religion and their own personality they put things down to acts of good, fate or simply coincidence.
It can be assumed that a person can influence certain events which affect his life – he is responsible for them. Hardly anyone would dispute that somebody who sweeps a cup from the table and breaks it has an influence over the destruction of the cup, and that he is responsible for breaking it. This influence is not always completely due to us, but we are at least heavily involved in the event, in this case breaking a cup. While the "cup breaker" is acting in harmony with gravity, he himself was the initiating factor. He is responsible for what happened. When we refer to responsibility this means that we had, will have or could have a strong influence over events.
It should be pointed out that our use of the term "responsibility" is not an apportionment of blame. The actions concerned are not condemned or assessed as "right" or "wrong". Responsibility merely indicates that we are heavily involved in an event.
Where does responsibility begin and where does it end, or does it never end? Are we perhaps responsible for everything that happens to us in life, and if we have this great influence, is this not also accompanied by great power?
These are the questions we intend to discuss in this essay. We wish to show that we might be personally responsible for everything that happens to us in life, and how we might use this influence for ourselves and a positive way of life.

Causal relationship between actions and consequences

As already stated, we feel responsible for events in which we recognise a connection between our actions and the ensuing results.
Nobody would dispute the causal relationship between throwing the cup and the broken cup. There are various areas in which the causal relationship between an action and its result is so obvious that it is not denied, e.g. if somebody does not dress warmly enough and catches a cold.
But after a certain point this causal relationship no longer goes undisputed, and from this point God or sheer chance is invoked as an external factor. In doing this we are clearly trying to assert that the responsibility belongs to somebody other than ourselves. Who feels responsible for an accident, especially if the courts have found us "blameless", and who is responsible for our own dismissal if we are made redundant at work?
Passing the responsibility on to outsiders in these cases (whether it be God, fate, coincidence, our employer or other car drivers) protects us against identifying with unpleasant events. If we saw a causal effect arising from our own actions, we would also have to take responsibility for the unpleasant result. This would lead to bad feelings such as failure, inferiority etc. To avoid such feelings we initiate a "justification programme" which eventually confirms to us that we were definitely not responsible for these results. If the aggressor had attacked differently or if the floor had been less slippery, I would have been able to apply all my techniques properly.
So there are things in life where we admit that we have a certain amount of influence, and other events where we do not. But where are the boundaries? Why are we responsible for one thing but apparently not for the other? Who defines the boundaries, and are they generally valid? Is every person responsible for his actions in the same areas? For most people the boundary between influence and no influence lies where a causal relationship is still recognised between an action and its consequences. The connection between our own action and the result is acknowledged, even if there is a time delay involved. Being aware of this connection is therefore decisive for our own view of whether we are responsible for events or not.
But can this awareness be so decisive? Is it possible that awareness of such connections is necessary for us to have influence? If somebody had no knowledge of gravity, would it then be due to God, the Devil or coincidence that the cup is broken when it is thrown to the floor?
It is surely unlikely that awareness of these connections has a major influence on whether we are responsible or not. It is more probable that we are responsible for many events, but are not aware of the causal relationship. Recognising the causal relationship would however be a great advantage, as it would put us in a position to influence events. If we recognise the connection between an action and its result, we can also recognise what we did to bring this result about and what we might have done differently to achieve a different result. We develop a "right of participation" for our own lives. This "right of participation" helps us to play a constructive part in shaping our own lifestyle.
The extent to which a person exercises this right to participate and decide is very definitely dependent on his own world image. Our world image is the sum of the conclusions we draw during the course of a lifetime. We experience various situations and interpret these in the light of our own thoughts, emotions, sensory impressions and personal beliefs. From these purely subjective interpretations of a situation we draw conclusions about the way the world is etc.. We see these as correct, believe in them and eventually regard them as absolute truths.
In childhood we continually ask ourselves how things, life and the world work. A child develops various views and is always prepared to modify its world image. These temporary images help the child to find its way in the world and adapt to circumstances. However, during the course of our lives we increasingly believe that we know how things work and no longer re-examine our own view of them. The result is a crystallised (rigid) world image which we use to explain everything that happens. We become accustomed to our world image and lose our willingness to change it and adapt. Instead we prefer to limit our own perceptions, thereby losing our capacity to see the many different alternative interpretations. We forget that our entire world image is based on purely subjective interpretations.
If I believe that God controls and plans everything, I will see the hand of God behind everything that happens. Conversely, if I believe there is no God and that everything is only due to coincidence, I will see all actions as chance occurrences.
Owing to this personal world image, every person judges a situation differently. One might think it is perfectly obvious that everything follows a divine plan, while another sees no connection whatever between events and is convinced that they are coincidental. Since our own world image and our belief in it is always subjective, two people will always interpret a situation differently. If I take the view that everything is coincidental, I will always find that I have very little influence over my lifestyle. After all, illnesses, losses and also pleasant experiences are then haphazardly "thrown" into my life, and I probably feel fairly powerless. I work and work, and just before the goal is reached something happens that is not my fault, and I have to start all over again. If I take the view that God controls everything, I will feel equally powerless. Where is my own freedom to take decisions? Where is my own free will if God decides everything? Even if the world images are different and I assess situations differently – depending whether I might believe in God or in coincidence – I feel the same in the final analysis, namely powerless. A feeling of powerlessness always occurs if I allow an external factor to have great influence on my life. External means outside myself, something which is not a part of me and something I cannot influence. But if I assume that God is in every individual (and that something special therefore resides in me), I will give an internal factor, i.e. something that is part of me, this power. This would empower me from within. I would have the chance to feel powerful – provided that I create a conscious link with this internal factor.
Feeling powerless is not a pleasant sensation, and most people would probably prefer to feel powerful and influential rather than powerless and helpless in the face of the powers that be. Once again we must stress that power in this context does not mean political or social power, but rather the power to shape our own lives, i.e. power over ourselves.

Our own perception

The well-known saying whether a glass is half-full or half-empty already shows that one can see a situation from different points of view. We are not aware of the objective truth that decides whether an event is good or bad, we only know our own interpretation of the situation. It is the only assessment basis we have for events, and this assessment depends on what we have experienced and assessed in the past. Owing to the subjectivity of all human perception, believing it to be objective does not give us the ability to actually perceive things objectively.
The following example shows that all situations can be viewed subjectively and interpreted in different ways. If we hear that a child has been born, this fact alone does not allow us to conclude anything about the state of mind of its relatives, i.e. whether they were pleased or would have preferred it not to be born. Naturally it is possible that the parents and other family members really wanted a child, and see its birth as an event that really completes their lives, but it is also possible that the parents are not happy about it at all.
If our world image leads us to conclude that a man who is not pleased about the birth of the child is a bad person, we are likely to condemn him and be angry at his behaviour as soon as we hear that he was not pleased. Conversely, if our world image incorporates the attitude that it does a man good to take responsibility for a child, and that he will develop positively as a result, we might be pleased that the man now has the chance to develop in this way.
It does not matter which feelings are "right". The point is to understand that our image of the world contains conclusions, i.e. beliefs and principles, and that believing in the incontrovertible truth of these conclusions gives rise to emotions. Depending on the nature of the belief or principle, we experience pleasant or unpleasant feelings. The situation itself only plays a very subordinate role.
Every person has beliefs which he thinks are true. It is not possible to believe in nothing. Even an atheist believes that God does not exist.
The upshot is that it is not the situation itself which gives rise to our feelings; the relevant feelings are created by our belief that we have the only true assessment of the situation. But if we accept that a situation is capable of many interpretations, we gain power over our emotions. A different assessment of the situation leads to other emotions.
An example: if your train is late, you can spend the entire half-hour while you wait for it to arrive being annoyed at missing a meeting, complaining that the train service is always late, swearing that everything used to be better once etc. The belief that unpunctuality and unplanned delays are negative is ingrained in your world view. It is only because of this belief that negative feelings arise.
You could also assess the situation differently and be glad that you have been given a half-hour break in an otherwise hectic working day. You could spend the waiting time in comfort with a cup of coffee, and have a pleasant conversation with a fellow traveller. This would be based on a belief that unexpected events have a positive meaning. This latter belief would lead to positive feelings. It would only be possible to determine what is objectively right about these two attitudes if we knew all the factors which might influence the situation in even the slightest way – whether they are in the past, the present or the future. Only then could we judge whether the lateness of the train was actually annoying or a reason to be glad.
However, we do not have the remotest chance of making such a judgement. Who can predict whom we might meet as a result of the train delay, how this might affect the rest of our lives or what would have happened if we had caught the train after all? An objective view of the situation is beyond the bounds of human capabilities. We are only aware of a very small number of determining factors. And if we also consider that these factors can be variable, then it is impossible for people to give a reliable forecast for the future.
Accordingly we will never really know which way would have been best.
This is the decisive point. Since we can only perceive things subjectively anyway, it is up to us to alter this perception and thereby gain influence over our feelings. If I believe that life is a constant battle, I will no doubt react to the train delay with anger and impatience. But if I believe that life continuously has positive surprises in store for me, I will react to the delay with expectancy, or at least not with anger and impatience. We will never really know whether life is a constant battle, an interesting journey of discovery or something else if we only feel we are fighters, explorers or whatever else.
As we have already established, we perceive all events subjectively, depending on our beliefs. The world image of every individual is very subjective, and based on very subjective beliefs. We feel different emotions depending on these beliefs. Let us now try to use this knowledge to obtain as many pleasant feelings as possible.
Who decides whether we feel we are fighters, explorers or something else? Who decides what feelings we have when our train is delayed, whether we are sad, angry, happy or disappointed etc.? As mentioned, we could easily find enough reasons to justify any of these feelings. It is our inner attitude to the world – our world image based on our beliefs – that decides which reasons we perceive more strongly.
Depending on the event in question, it is therefore we who decide what we want to feel. This decision is already so much a part of us that we usually do not even consider that we might feel differently in the same situation, namely by assessing or viewing the situation differently.
The fact that we have different perceptive possibilities is shown e.g. when we read a book for the second time (perhaps years later) and find quite new aspects to it, or we begin to like music we would never have listened to before.
But why should we continuously adapt our world image, and why should be look for different ways of seeing things? This is a fair question for all those who are presently happy, whether or not their circumstances in life justify this according to general standards. These people are content with themselves and the world at present. Presumably they are not interested in what one might or should do with one’s world image, or how perception works. They are happy, therefore they do not care whether the train arrives late or not.
People in this condition are more relaxed, do not suffer from tense muscles and enjoy life. This relaxed attitude (physical and mental) requires less strength and less energy. This saved energy leads to better performance, more creativity and allows them to cope with things better. In addition they have lots of free potential to think about creative concepts, namely the free potential which would otherwise be swallowed up in getting angry about the efficiency of train operators.
We have these and countless other possibilities if we are able to direct our perception. Life becomes more creative, relaxed and enjoyable. Which puts us on the best path to a conscious connection with the inner power factor.
We just need to learn to recognise and use these ways of perceiving events. This is best done by asking ourselves whether there might be a different way of interpreting a situation whenever we experience negative feelings about something. Since we do not know anyway which variation is objectively correct, we might as well choose the variant which gives us pleasant feelings. In time we will become increasingly aware that there is no such thing as objectivity, but that we are responsible to ourselves for our assessment of a situation. We are responsible for the feelings we experience.

Shaping reality

So far we have shown how people can help themselves gain more potential. We have explained that people cannot perceive any objective truth, but rather interpret events according to their own world image, assign their own emotions to them and are therefore responsible for their own feelings.
We will now go further and show that every individual is not only responsible for his own emotions, but also for the situations that arise. As creators of our own reality, we are also able to shape this reality positively.
We all know that if we pluck a guitar string, other strings with the same pitch vibrate in sympathy and make a sound as well. In terms of physics, plucking the guitar string sends out a sound wave which causes other waves with the same characteristics to vibrate. Like a guitar, every person also has an attunement at which he vibrates. Just as it is not possible to play harmonious music on an out-of-tune guitar, an "out-of-tune" person cannot create harmonious "inner" music. A melody we can play on a guitar is always an expression of the guitar’s basic tuning. If it is tuned differently, certain melodies cannot be played.
In a figurative sense the same applies to people. The human heart beats 50 to 180 times per minute, influencing the characteristics of the waves we send out – depending on our mood, level of excitement or physical activity. The same applies to sound, for example. Different waves are sent out, depending on whether we speak in a calm or loud voice. Depending on the feelings we allow within ourselves, we send out different waves with different characteristics. We react correspondingly to incoming waves, and waves with the same characteristics resonate within us.
In this way we create resonances in people or things in our environment which share the same mood. We are "on the same wavelength" with them. We have all experienced a situation where we are in a small, good-humoured group of people and somebody joins in who is in a bad mood, then proceeds to turn the entire mood of the group around. The group has adapted to the newcomer’s wavelength. The reverse can also happen, of course.
Who influences whom and causes them to resonate is dependent on many different factors. It is merely important to realise that we cause corresponding resonances in others with our feelings, thoughts and words. So if we want to be "on the same wavelength" and approach people who are harmonious and happy, we must be harmonious and happy ourselves. If we are angry we will potentially encounter more and more people who are also in a bad mood. If we have just fallen in love, we are more likely to encounter nice people because we connect with our surroundings more dynamically owing to our happy mood, and people who meet us will feel attracted to our good vibrations. Our fellow humans also appear very much nicer if we are walking around with butterflies in our tummy. Our fellow humans detect the empathy we send out and feel accepted. Friendly relations with mutual respect and esteem are much more likely on this basis.
Our own mood very much decides whom we approach and what happens to us. Naturally this not only applies to our emotional state. If we decide to buy a dog, for example, we very quickly realise how many dog-owners there are in our immediate surroundings. We suddenly meet them while shopping or during our morning walk. We had never really noticed before, but the changed situation (buying the dog) puts us "on the same wavelength" as other dog-owners in the area.
Our actions influence our moods, which means our perceptions and therefore our reality. Somebody who is wealthy is more likely to earn even more money than somebody who is poor. He resonates with the corresponding wave characteristics. Throughout our lives it is impossible not to send out waves. We always influence our environment. All we can do is choose the characteristics of our waves.
So how do get to the "right" wavelength? Every person strives for certain things. Some would like wealth, good health or beauty, but all these wishes only have the higher aim of being happy. We are happy if we have happy, i.e. pleasant feelings. To understand how we might achieve these feelings and enter the desired mood, it helps to think about the origins of negative feelings. We perceive bad feelings or pain as unpleasant, no matter whether it is the mental or the physical level that creates the feelings. Negative feelings are always an indication that something is wrong. However, we not only have them when something is actually wrong (illness, muscular imbalance...), but also always when everything is in order, but we believe we should expect something negative to happen in the future.
If we believe that the world is a flat disc, for example, we would probably have negative feelings all the time if we embarked on a sea voyage. This would express itself as fear. But when these feelings arise everything is still ok, and only our belief that something might go wrong in the future (the ship falls off the edge of the disc and our life is in danger), ensures that we already have bad feelings now.
The bad feelings are a warning signal, and are therefore a protective mechanism. This still applies today, although our present social structures are very complex. And it is still true that our reliance on our own beliefs, whatever their quality, shares the responsibility for our feelings.
Let us return to the late train. The passenger is angry about the delay, but why? He is annoyed because he thinks he will be late for work, and this leads to the fear that his boss will think less of him, perhaps dismiss him, leaving him without money, losing his rented flat, losing his friends and finally ending up starving and frozen alone under a bridge.
If the man in our example gave the matter a little thought, he would realise that he is actually only afraid of cold, hunger and isolation. His anger is only a means of expressing this fear. If he became aware of this, he would no doubt realise that things will not be as bad as he unconsciously believes. Despite numerous budget cuts in the social security sector, he would be reasonably well looked after. Neither would his friends probably mind whether he had a job or not. And all this would only be the case in the unlikely event of his boss dismissing him for being late.
Whenever we examine any apparently negative emotion, we will always encounter the basic human fear of not having a fundamental need met (food, a roof over one’s head, friends/warmth). This fear is there for self-protection. To ensure our survival, fear generates negative feelings to give us a warning. But this warning is not always necessary.
As long as our vital needs are met, there is no reason to generate bad feelings. The problem is that people have not practiced concentrating on the positive things in their lives. If we take our ancient ancestors, they needed to consider a large number of dangers in order to safeguard their survival. They could only relax for a while if everything was in order. But at the slightest sign of danger, the problem needed to be eliminated before they could relax and enjoy again. For many thousands of years people have therefore been conditioned to recognise problems, try to eliminate them and only relax afterwards. But how often does it actually occur that all problems have been solved, whether with the household, the job, the children or financial? As soon as we see something as a problem, we have to eliminate it before we can feel happy. This mechanism ensured our survival in prehistoric times.
But what about today? We live in Europe, the social security network ensures our financial survival and we do not realistically need to fear wild animals or loneliness. Our survival is assured. If we are mindful of this situation, we can calm our own instincts by telling them that nothing can happen. Naturally there are countless minor, day-to-day problems which do not threaten our survival, but are irritating. But these minor problems should not keep us from being happy. If we continue to tell ourselves that our basic needs are safeguarded, we can concentrate on the pleasant things in life.
It is important to understand that only in very few cases do we perceive the current situation as 100 % ok and perfect. But although perhaps only 95% are ok we can still direct our perception to positive things, as not every problem requires an immediate solution and not every problem is important enough to do without pleasant feelings. There is another important aspect. If we have a problem we would like to resolve, it is good to have as much creativity, mental potential and energy as possible available for the purpose. And as already stated, we have most potential available if we are relaxed, harmonious and happy. This is when problems are best solved. As paradoxical as it sounds, we should already be happy if we want to resolve a problem well. We should not be happy only when we have resolved the problem.
It takes a little practice to remind ourselves continuously that our basic needs are met, and that we can direct our own perceptions to pleasant things, whether they be thoughts, memories, objects or people. The important thing is that they give us pleasant feelings. Ideally we would not assess a situation as a problem in the first place, thereby sparing ourselves the negative feelings from the start.
We must not forget that all our lives, we have always looked for things that still needed resolving. But once we start training ourselves, there are no obstacles to shaping our own lives. We must only work hard at training away old, unhealthy behaviour patterns. After all, practice makes perfect.
To conclude this chapter, there is no doubt that every individual has the means of empowerment within himself. If he is able to make the connection with this power, the divine power within him, he will lead a happy, fulfilled and contented life. He will have the power to shape his own life. Naturally he has already done this before, but unconsciously. It is not possible not to shape one’s life, but doing it unconsciously means that we unintentionally manoeuvre ourselves into unpleasant situations. Once we become aware that our own mood or attitude influences our surroundings and therefore our own life, we realise that nothing just haphazardly occurred in our life, but that the reasons lie in our actions or lack of action. On the basis of our own interpretation, we can then try to see the positive meaning in any situation. The result is positive feelings. These in turn lead to pleasant situations, which then reinforce the positive feelings etc.

Conclusion

We are aware that there are events in the world which cannot be easily explained in the light of the above model. What about children who are born with illnesses, people who live in war-torn areas and poor people. How can one assert that they have freely chosen or created their circumstances in life?
These events are hard to explain, and we are not seeking to justify ourselves by pointing out that other, perhaps better-known models do not provide satisfactory answers. What is the point of having children in crisis-torn areas believe that there is some great overall design, and that their plight is due to fate or chance? Such attempted explanations offer those affected no consolation and do not still any hunger.
But perhaps all of us have chosen our circumstances in life, but cannot remember doing so. After all, who can prove that there is only this life? Perhaps every experience is of equal value – being hungry or being sated – and we choose which experience we want to have? Because events are only assessed by our thoughts and emotions. It does not matter whether there are several lives or not. We should not restrict our own perception by excluding certain points of view or interpretations. Merely considering certain views to be possible produces different feelings than excluding them. And we remain more open, more able to adjust our own world image.
Neither is it simply a matter of saying we want to be rich and healthy, and then wondering why this does not work. Everybody would claim that they want to be happy. But as we have explained, the point is not just to say it, but to change disturbing patterns of behaviour on a daily basis.
In summary, the point is not to determine who leads a better or worse life, but to examine the quality of our own emotions and how these emotions come about on the basis of our subjective assessment of situations. The point is to use this knowledge of our own emotions positively, and to recognise how much influence we actually have. The point is not to feel immediately helpless because an event has occurred which we cannot immediately explain. Perhaps when the next unexpected event occurs, the point is to assume that there is a positive background to the event, and above all to realise that we are responsible for our own happiness.

Tibor Farago, Claudia Bernhardt